3 ms·
Ok... so here's another tidbit. Meta-analysis was really developed (although not originated) in psychology, attempting to wrestle with replicability issues in
by ndidoiul 9y ago
Ok... so here's another tidbit.
Meta-analysis was really developed (although not originated) in psychology, attempting to wrestle with replicability issues in much the same way as is the case now. It's really the introspective nature of the human behavioral sciences that drives that as much as the complexity of what's being dealt with.
And I'm not sure why you think psychiatric theories can't be falsified. It happens all the time. If it couldn't, this registered replication stuff wouldn't be getting so much attention, because it would be a non-starter.
- valuearb 9y agoMeta-analysis can't solve the problems with statistical studies. Disparate small studies don't correlate well with a single larger study, given different standards for measurements, participants, different and possibly overlapping pools, etc. Meta-analysis also suffers from publication bias, agenda based bias, etc. How does running a bunch of replications of a study ever falsify it? Based on statistical probability it's always possible the original study was accurate, and it's the replications that cheated. The realization that the results of these studies are essentially random goes a long ways towards establishing how unfalsifiable any of them are. And beyond statistical studies into analytic theories, how do you falsify the theory of the "Id, ego and super-ego"? Transfer neuroses? How do you falsify "Dialectical behavior therapy"? It worked for someone somewhere, so it must be true. The only thing that's come out of the whole of psychiatry and psychology that has any scientific merit is Skinners behavioral experiments.